Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sadler v. Tilley, 07-1332 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1332 Visitors: 56
Filed: Sep. 05, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1332 ZARA ELLIS SADLER, PHD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARBARA CLAIRE TILLEY, PHD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:05-cv-03234-DCN) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zara Ellis Sadler, Ap
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 07-1332



ZARA ELLIS SADLER, PHD,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


BARBARA CLAIRE TILLEY, PHD,

                                                Defendant - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:05-cv-03234-DCN)


Submitted: August 30, 2007                  Decided:   September 5, 2007


Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Zara Ellis Sadler, Appellant Pro Se.   Morris Dawes Cooke, Jr.,
Lucinda Gardner Wichmann, John William Fletcher, Alissa DeCarlo,
BARNWELL, WHALEY, PATTERSON & HELMS, LLC, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Zara Ellis Sadler seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying her motion for appointment of counsel.             This court

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 
337 U.S. 541
 (1949).         The order Sadler seeks to appeal

is   neither   a   final   order   nor   an   appealable   interlocutory   or

collateral order.     Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction.      We also deny Sadler’s motion for appointment of

counsel.   We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                  DISMISSED




                                    - 2 -

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer